The US is not sending its best marathon team to the Tokyo Olympics

Sara Hall went to the trials...and wasn't top 3. I think you meant that the US wasn't sending their best 3 to the olympics.

oldschoollrc wrote:

Sara Hall went to the trials...and wasn't top 3. I think you meant that the US wasn't sending their best 3 to the olympics.

Yes my mind typed trials and I meant Olympics! Anyhow. I know its too late now but this situation should really trigger an overhaul of the trial system. Its just not useful for a marathon. Your fastest marathoners are your best marathoners. Doing the trials also cost them one out of only two competitions per year. It makes no sense.

If Kenya picked their team for a race 1.5 years in the future, this board would go nuts.

That said, we did have the Trials, and a team was chosen. Have fun with this.

Eh. I think all this complaining is a little overwrought.

You have not proposed an alternative method for choosing a team, but based on your comments, I would guess you think we should take the 3 fastest times run during a certain period. But do you really think someone who can race a fast time on a fast course is necessarily a "better marathoner" than someone who can race a tactical championship-style race on an undulating course? If we are looking to choose a team that can perform well at the Olympics (a tactical race, not a time trial), then you could argue that it would be a mistake to choose our team based solely on time.

I would also say that the marathon trials is the best (or one of the best) distance running events in the US. It is so much fun to watch because there is so much on the line, and you get to see our country's top talent all in one place. I wouldn't want to give that up in favor of a bunch of dispersed time trials over the course of multiple years.

So what do you propose?

We simply choose the top 3 times over the last year or two to go? What about our best runners who run tough courses against top competition (NY, Boston) as opposed to Chicago or CIM? What if the olympic course won't be a fast one?

We allow USATF or USOC big wigs to select the "best" runners? Mmmm, no thanks.

There is no perfect system that guarantees the "best" team will toe the line at the olympics. None. It will never happen.

Therefore, we allow the athletes to select themselves, in an actual race, a reasonable amount of time before the actual olympics.

At the time of the trials, we didn't know that the Olympics would be postponed or canceled or whatever, nobody thinks that having the trials 1.5 years before the event is a good idea, but it's what we're stuck with, and that's fine. I hope our team does well, because any other solution would be unfair to them, and that's what the olympics are about...the athletes.

The trials is a completely fair and transparent system for selecting the Olympic team. One race. Top three finish.

Stuff happens. Maybe a top contender doesn't perform well at trials. Too bad. That's why races are run.

There is no better system than the trials. If you are the best then you should be able to perform when it counts.

runningchick wrote:

With Sara Hall being off the team you are clearly not sending the best team to Tokyo. Is there anyone that can argue against that? So why having trials if who you send is not your best team? Can anyone at least try to argue how the current team *is* the best possible one. Because I cannot.

And I know the trials in the US seem like the holy cow that cannot be touched but then please do not whine when you never even get close to medalling in the marathon where the trials being run on such a ridiculous course produced such flukes. Anyhow if I was from the US I'd be really unhappy to see a 2:20 woman who has been so consistent recently not going. She could compete for a medal. Its quite the insanity.

This is such a dumb take. Do you think the track trials should be cancelled too? We almost never send the top 3 runners (based on time) in ANY distance, so why would we do it that way for the marathon? And aren't we choosing a team that we want to perform well in a race? If that's the case, doesn't it make sense to have them, you know, race each other?

It was known beforehand that the course was not replicating Olympic marathon conditions. So why Atlanta, and why that course? Ask the administrators that approved, and the network that broadcast the event.

Long story short, athletes earned their privilege to qualify for the Tokyo Olympic through trial, so that shouldn't be taken away in any means. It doesn't matter if there is another athlete that is clearly better or they break the world record. By making exceptions running trials become pointless.

The Trials are like a playoff system. The winners are determined by who brings their "A game" on race day. Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. #1 seed played #1 seed only eight times in the championship game in the tournament history. Only once did all four #1s make it the the Final Four; no #1s made it three times. Did that mean the best teams were not playing in the final? Yes. But they did not play their best WHEN IT COUNTED and thus were eliminated. Were the 2007 Giants (10-6) a better team than the 2007 Patriots (16-0)? No way, but they are wearing the Super Bowl rings from 2007.

When you select for the Marathon based purely on time, you get a team of mostly time trialists who search out the fastest courses with the best conditions. These runners are not always the best selection for an international championship where conditions are always subpar and pacing is never ideal. Sara Hall runs very well in cold weather on flat courses. She is pretty terrible in the heat. Even if the race is held in Sapporo, it will still be warm and humid in August.

Have any of the top 5 trials finishers run a marathon since the trials? Why do we assume that none of them could be running similar or even faster than Hall? Well, the ones who are not currently pregnant, anyway.

It would open up the process to controversy and second guessing. Runner X beat runner Y in such and such race but runner Y has a faster time than runner X on a faster course, etc.

The current process is transparent and everyone knows what they need to do to make the team. Don't change it.

76chine wrote:

It was known beforehand that the course was not replicating Olympic marathon conditions. So why Atlanta, and why that course? Ask the administrators that approved, and the network that broadcast the event.

This is because the Atlanta course replicated the original course, but the course was changed. They were worried about how hot it was going to be in Tokyo so they moved it, but by that point Atlanta and the course were already selected. A lot of time and work had went into the trials setup so they just went with it instead of a last minute change.

Sara can make the U.S. team in the 10,000 if she wishes.

This gets flat out "no."

That's almost advocating what the Karolyis and USA gymnastics did where a solid gymnast who placed second in the all-around could be bumped from Olympic all-around competition if the favored all-arounder didn't place in the top 2.

Then you're basically just picking a team because you want to see who you want on the team.

This also happened in figure skating when a top 3 skater was bumped for Ashley Wagner.

Just because someone is consistent and people really really believe they should be there doesn't mean they should be there. Otherwise, let all teams be picked by a kangaroo court of coaches among a narrow pool of favored athletes and have no possibility of a Bryce Hoppel who surprised a lot of people.

No.

runningchick wrote:

With Sara Hall being off the team you are clearly not sending the best team to Tokyo. Is there anyone that can argue against that? So why having trials if who you send is not your best team? Can anyone at least try to argue how the current team *is* the best possible one. Because I cannot.

And I know the trials in the US seem like the holy cow that cannot be touched but then please do not whine when you never even get close to medalling in the marathon where the trials being run on such a ridiculous course produced such flukes. Anyhow if I was from the US I'd be really unhappy to see a 2:20 woman who has been so consistent recently not going. She could compete for a medal. Its quite the insanity.

December 21st, 2020>>>>>Dumbest post of the Year...as if no one realized her (site shill) huge revelation. Wow, I mean wow this site has some ding dongs who post just to read, read, read and reread their post over and over.

Crapgame wrote:

Have any of the top 5 trials finishers run a marathon since the trials? Why do we assume that none of them could be running similar or even faster than Hall? Well, the ones who are not currently pregnant, anyway.

Molly Seidel ran London - Sara Hall beat her there.